Globalization, Power, and Security SEAN KAY* Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, OH, USA This article surveys major international relations theory as a frame- work for thinking about globalization; examines the modern role of power within a globalized international system; and illustrates these dynamics within the context of international terrorism. The central conclusion is that globalization has not radically changed funda- mental aspects of international relations, but has rather altered means and channels for the exercise of power. The article demonstrates that power remains the key independent variable shaping modern inter- national relations. Globalization is a manifestation of new means through which power is exercised and distributed. Nevertheless, the complexity of globalization requires a reassessment of the meaning of power in international security. Keywords asymmetric power • globalization • hard and soft power • power • security • terrorism N A WORLD DEFINED BY GLOBALIZATION, new sets of complex and interrelated risks force states to redefine their security needs. This Iarticle demonstrates that, in spite of the globalization upheaval, a key independent variable of international relations remains constant – power. The relative distribution of power and the means through which it is dis- seminated are central to understanding globalization. Analysis that treats globalization as an independent phenomenon ignores the role of globaliza- tion as a channel for the exercise of power. Globalization has not radically changed international relations, but has rather altered the means through which international security relationships are channeled. This article surveys major theories of international relations as signposts to understanding globalization; assesses new forms that power takes in international relations; and examines these issues within the context of international terrorism. What makes the search for security in a globalized world new is the means through which international power flows. © 2004 PRIO, www.prio.no SAGE Publications, www.sagepublications.com Vol. 35(1): 9–25, DOI: 10.1177/0967010604042533 10 Security Dialogue vol. 35, no. 1, March 2004 International Relations Theory and Globalization Globalization is often seen by its proponents as facilitating a new idealism of economic openness, political transparency, and global culture. Globalization provides an opportunity for the advancement of common human standards and equality as norms and rules are channeled throughout the world. This global proximity is thought to foster cooperation and to increase security. Alternatively, globalization is often seen as a tool for large hegemonic states to exercise economic primacy with little regard for human rights, labor stan- dards, or the environment. In this context, globalization is a threat which must be organized against. States may seek to defend against the ‘threat’ of globalization as individuals organize to ‘combat’ the perceived dangers of globalization. This article demonstrates that globalization is a neutral force through which power is channeled. Globalization is best understood as the creation of a variety of transboundary mechanisms for interaction that affect and reflect the acceleration of economic, political, and security interdependence. As states increasingly feel the effects of globalization, particularly in the eco- nomic sphere, it has become paramount for international relations theory to account for the international structure of globalization. For example, as the Asian financial crisis of 1997–98 showed, close international economic inter- dependence can increase vulnerability across borders. This outcome became especially clear to authoritarian regimes who could not sufficiently adapt to the pressures of economic and financial globalization without risking their hold on state power. Countries like Indonesia have witnessed significant economic pressures for governmental reform. The desire of China to reap relative economic gains via international trade has clashed with its internal human rights record and its management of transnational diseases such as SARS and HIV/AIDS. Additionally, China’s quest to join the World Trade Organization has forced it to adapt to certain international norms of trade espoused by its Western partners. Much of the study of globalization focuses on the measurement of eco- nomic interdependence and related vulnerabilities or opportunities. How- ever, the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 necessitate a hard look at existing analytical frameworks for understanding the relationship between globalization and security if adequate international responses are to be achieved. If it is difficult to define globalization, it is even more difficult to make a precise conclusion as to how globalization increases or decreases the degree of security (Clark, 1999). If security is the quest for the absence, or lessening, of threats in an anarchic world, globalization might increase or decrease security outcomes. If security is seen as a particularistic quest of nation-states to provide for their own defense, then globalization also pro- vides both challenges and opportunities. Sean Kay Globalization, Power, and Security 11 Scholars can directly measure economic globalization by observing various flows of economic transactions. Measuring the relationship between global- ization and international security is more difficult. It is not entirely necessary to come up with a perfect definition of security globalization – rather, we need to accept that it has occurred and to understand its effects and causal rela- tionships. What makes globalization such a crucial aspect of modern inter- national security is that the phenomenon brings an entirely new set of measurements of international security layered on top of those that dominat- ed 20th-century global politics. Globalization does not represent a trans- formation of the international system. It represents an adaptation of the means through which international interactions are exercised, combined with an increase in the number and types of actors. One can know that globaliza- tion exists and matters as part of the structure of international relations because of the effects that it produces. A close look at these effects demon- strates that globalization is neither an independent nor a causal phenomenon. Rather, globalization is best understood as a technologically facilitated pro- liferation of the means through which power within the international system is channeled and pursued. What make globalization a new, and essential, component of contemporary international security are the increasingly complex conditions under which international actors exercise power. The classical approach to the study of international relations, realism, focuses on the nation-state as a barrier between the international system and the domestic sphere of politics. Domestic politics are seen as separated from the international system, which is characterized as anarchy or the absence of order. Realists focus on the nation-state (especially its military and economic capabilities) and the desire of states to advance national interests and gains (both absolute and relative). In this view, states are fundamentally concerned with survival and seek to maximize power toward this end. States must ensure that they can provide for their military and economic safety, and they cannot count on the goodwill of others. Institutions such as international law and formal international organizations might be useful as tools for advancing national interests and exerting power, but they are not to be relied upon for security guarantees (Mearsheimer, 1995). To realists, globalization reflects the hegemonic influence of the major powers in international politics. Realists tend to see proximity creating vulnerability, which leads to conflict (Waltz, 1979; Mearsheimer, 2001). Globalization, however, is more complicated than realist theory alone can account for. If globalization is measured as the acceleration of transboundary communication, international networks, the diffusion of power, reciprocity and mutual dependence, and the expansion of universal norms and princi- ples, a different conclusion about contemporary international politics emerges. These trends combine with the proliferation of non-state actors – such as formal international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, 12 Security Dialogue vol. 35, no. 1, March 2004 and multinational corporations – to alter the playing field of international relations. Neoliberal institutional theory explains international relations in terms of complex interdependence, and considers these new international dynamics as positing a serious challenge to realism (Keohane & Nye, 2001). Neoliberal institutionalism focuses on the unique conditions of globalization that reflect accelerating interdependence and its impact on how states per- ceive their interests (Keohane, 2002). In a condition of complex interdepend- ence, states will recognize a mutual demand for cooperation. Neoliberal institutionalists recognize the same vulnerability and sensitivity of inter- dependence that realists do. However, rather than seeing globalization as breeding conflict, neoliberal scholars see states as having an interest in co- operation (Keohane, 1989). States will share an interest in creating inter- national institutions to facilitate cooperation, and new actors will emerge that affect international agenda-setting, while power becomes more